<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (2) TMI 396 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220991</link>
    <description>Delay in pronouncing an adjudication order does not by itself vitiate proceedings where the hearing was concluded under the statutory procedure and no actual prejudice is shown. Retracted statements may still be relied upon if the authority gives reasons for finding them voluntary and corroborated by surrounding material. Refusal of cross-examination does not offend natural justice unless the party demonstrates real prejudice, especially where the documents were disclosed and an opportunity to rebut was provided. Concurrent findings of contravention under foreign exchange law supported the penalty, and no further reduction was considered warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2025 18:46:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194350" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 396 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220991</link>
      <description>Delay in pronouncing an adjudication order does not by itself vitiate proceedings where the hearing was concluded under the statutory procedure and no actual prejudice is shown. Retracted statements may still be relied upon if the authority gives reasons for finding them voluntary and corroborated by surrounding material. Refusal of cross-examination does not offend natural justice unless the party demonstrates real prejudice, especially where the documents were disclosed and an opportunity to rebut was provided. Concurrent findings of contravention under foreign exchange law supported the penalty, and no further reduction was considered warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>FEMA</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>